1 - Consider the title of this article, "... Now You Might Be Able To Use Copyright Law To Stop Anyone From Recording You Ever ..." and the second sentence in the intro above, "... how to use copyright law to block otherwise perfectly legal recordings ..."
2 - So, on first blush, I thought Bloomberg was a participant along with Swatch in the event Bloomberg recorded, so I presumed some of the recorded content was theirs, and I wrote my initial arguments above in this thread based on that limited summation by Mike Masnick.
3 - But in subsequently reading the motion to dismiss, the judge identified that "... Bloomberg accessed the call surreptitiously and without authorization or consent ...", so I now see Mike as mis-assessing the case, and Bloomberg as the wiretapping sleazeball group they are.
4 - I reserve the right to time-shift and record for personal use anything available via the free public airwaves, thank you Sony Betamax case * (which does not apply to tapping into something NOT available over the free public airwaves).
* 1984! Ooo, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
Wait for it ... read all the way through:
From the ODMD order denying motion to dismiss (all "quotes" below are from the ODMD): "... An operator informed participants at the beginning of the call that the call would be recorded, and she stated expressly that the call should not otherwise be recorded for publication or broadcast ..."
"... should ..." is NOT prohibition of either recording, nor re-publication nor broadcast, and especially not a prohibition against making a subsequent new art: a written transcript, sort of like a 2-dimensional photograph of 3-dimensional sculpture.
"... The Certificate of Registration expressly acknowledges that "... no claim of authorship is made to the performance of speakers not employees for hire of' Swatch Group or Management Services ..."
Swatch cannot legally make that claim for Bloomberg since the non-employees -- Bloomberg and others -- are not signatories to the copyright claim, in fact, it's a round-about admission by Swatch that they copyrighted something they did not own and do not have the rights to -- Bloomberg's original "art" in Bloomberg's participation, further subverting Swatch's claim that Bloomberg's recording was "unauthorized" -- since Bloomberg was a contributing artist, Swatch has no superior authority to prohibit recording nor copyright any non-Swatch contributions by others.
From a Copyright statue quoted in the legal piece: "... As a general matter, under federal law, "... copyright in a work ... vests initially in the author or authors of the work." 17 U.S.c. ? 201(a) ..."
Since Swatch admits they are not the author of at least some contributions to the work, they have compromised their own standing in this case.
From a Copyright statute quoted in the legal piece: "... not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work ..."
Was it an audio+VIDEO conference call? If so, then all bets are off, and Swatch's claims have no statutory support.
"... the work is considered fixed "if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission ..."
Yet, since Bloomberg's contribution (and presumably other non-Swatch participants) were participating LIVE, their contribution cannot be considered part of Swatch's "fixation" of a remote transmission -- for Bloomberg, it was local.
"... It is as if one who was dictating live into a tape recorder were overheard and copied at the moment of dictation. At that moment, the material has become a 'writing,' even if copied simultaneously, rather than a moment later ..."
Except Bloomberg recorded THEMSELVES ... LOCAL ... LIVE!
"... Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author ..."
Need I repeat -- Swatch did NOT create the entire work, Bloomberg and others were participants.
"... Bloomberg accessed the call surreptitiously and without authorization or consent ..."
Wait a minute!
Eavesdropping, with NO participation in the contents of the broadcast "call" from Bloomberg?
Bloomberg are thieving sleazebags and deserve the book thrown at them (unless Bloomberg's transcript proves to be a new artwork not owned by Swatch, but really, the only way Bloomberg got to the transcript was surreptitiously without Swatch's permission or acknowledgement?!?)!
I now stand unconfused by the second layer of facts to which both parties appear to have stipulated.
Earlier, "... Read the opinion. It explains, in detail, why your argument is contrary to the law. The Copyright Act explicitly deals with simultaneous recording of live transmissions. ..."
And YOUR reading of the opinion and "the" Copyright Act in this situation is ...?
It's real simple -- Bloomberg did not copy Swatch's copyright RECORDING, Bloomberg copied a conversation, just as Swatch did.
Suppose 10 video journalists show up to record the President's speech, does the first to hit the send button on their recording invalidate the other 9?
No, because the other 9 did not copy the first videographer's RECORDING, they all recorded something from the free and open airwaves, available to all.
chillingeffects.org not ce.org
chillingeffects.org not ce.org
chillingeffects.org not ce.org
chillingeffects.org not ce.org
BrightBart (I don't care how HE spells it, he's a Simpson any way you look at him) claims he was trying to "focus" on the approving laughter from the NAACP audience as Shirley Sherrod spoke about humoring but not helping a white farmer in need -- he was calling the NAACP on their finger pointing of racism elsewhere, ignoring their own racism. It's a silly point, also out of context, but buried deep now, so it hardly matters. Just saying ...
One cop turn his RADAR gun around to show me that he clocked me going 35 in a 25 zone. I could tell he was preparing for court, and wanted me to know I could not beat his testimony.
For all I know, the RADAR gun was stuck on 35 all day and he used the same ploy on everyone.
Testimony is all. Because it's a time-thing, there is no "evidence".
I was stopped for speeding in Maryland, US, kept quiet all the way through the ticket, and as the cop walked away, I decided to be bold. I mentioned to the cop that he never said anything about safety. He turned and said, "We understand each other completely."
In other words, speeding tickets are not for safety, otherwise the cops would drive in traffic to dampen people's speed.
It's all about revenue.
In Arlington County, Virginia, US, the driving safety class instructors tell us to avoid Arlington during our probation because the police give tickets on a whim regardless of our behavior on the roadway ... because they are incentivised by the one with the most tickets choosing their vacation days first. If a cop wants Christmas off, they must beat all other cop's ticket numbers.
Speeding tickets have nothing to do with safety.
Speeding tickets have everything to do with revenue.
So now we have to have a court case challenging the accuracy of the training, and if it's accurate (hahahahaha!), then challenging the practiced success accuracy of the officer's mastery of the training (hahahahaha!). Eyewitness testimony has proven incredibly faulty and unreliable. The judge is a dolt.
They keep moving the bar (so to speak) on how much a speeding ticket is worth. It's REVENUE for the Police, so that's their incentive. It's risk of loosing your license and paying exorbitant insurance rates for drivers, so that's their incentive.
The real challenge is finding a good lawyer who can set precedent to toss this judge back into reality.
Justice is not in the balance, apparently, it's in a pendulum.
Justice is available, it just takes a little work ... okay, a lot of work ... to dethrone the Police and the Judge.
I for one am all for tanking RADAR and LASER.
However, I was stopped by a cop using a stopwatch to clock cars passing line markers on the highway!
Actually, this happens all the time -- people blaming technology for not living up to their dream expectations. It's all in the glossy advertisements: "... buy this and your life will change ..." Although that's nothing new, no one sues aftershave or cologne or perfume makers when they fail to "win" a date (or "win" on a date). But people think technology stuff is smarter then they are, and so they think it will magically compensate for their own lack of thinking. As a technical consultant, I have to address this daily: The computer cannot be any smarter than the person sitting in front of it.
"... if anything you say harms someone's reputation, you've defamed them ..."
"... stories about Samsung's corruption and bribery scandals are pretty widely known ..."
The joke harm their reputation, they made their reputation themselves, and he just commented on the reputation they built themselves, so I hope he defends himself well based on that.
My Sony product IS a Samsung -- so why not look inside your Samsung products and see if they are made by Sony after all?
Earlier: "... If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain ..."
An excellent lesson for the co-moderators to try being patient, considerate, and to overcome their own failure of imagination on how to deal with the issue: monetizing the customer's eyeballs is NOT the customer's responsibility .. unless you PAY them. ;-)
Wow, I see this all the time.
I co-moderate a few dozen archived discussion groups. I have to fight all the time against fellow co-moderators who want to ban anyone for anything as if it's "their" group -- as others above have commented, "it's the owner's group, don't like it, leave".
No, it's not the owner's group, regardless of who pays the domain registration and hosting fees.
Once a second person joins, it's 50%/50% each member's group.
And once a third person joins, it's 33%/33%/33% each member's group.
And so on.
To consider participating members as mere fodder rather than giving them equivalent consideration as co-authors of the content is suicide, as well as just plain dumb and discourteous.
I have to remind fellow co-moderators that when they are trying to ban someone else, it is only because of their own impatience and incompetence to deal with it, and their own lack of trust in the group's fellow members to grow and learn how to deal with uncomfortable posts from fellow members.
I'm not talking about spam -- however we've learned to not even ban spammers, instead we leave them in the membership with reduced posting privileges.
Once some co-moderator or admin one pulls out the banning weapon, they get carried away. I call them "vladmins" after Vlad the Impaler -- look it up. And, there's no way to prove to new fellow members down the line that someone in the "banned" list is a only a spammer, not someone a co-moderator just doesn't like. So we're proud of our "banned" list being empty.
All this boils down to respecting the customer as the reason for being, and treating the customer as sacrosanct. Not the owner. Not the advertisers. The customer.
Without the customer, there are no advertisers. And without advertisers, unless the owner has deep pockets from some other source, then eventually, there is no owner.
Customers first and foremost.
And so on.
Funny, I didn't mention advertisers and owners, did I?
Because owner's and advertisers NEVER get on the priority list.
They are there only to serve the customer, never themselves.
Then die a painful, fruitless Internet death, having learned nothing!
It seems people need to relearn this every single frickin' day.
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise dot com
Thanks for the additional insight on what the site owner could try in order monetize the results of their efforts. I notice that you didn't mention anything they could do to to better serve their customers. Hmm ...
Also, below is a post that implies that the brouhaha was caused by an overzealous volunteer co-administrator. I see this happen all the time.. For example, it's rampant on Wikipedia where newbie editors are surprised by, and can't stand, "all the work" it takes to deal with the rabble masses, and so they quickly call for banning, and become delitionists.
The owner of the site apparently has better things to do, and has backed off to a hands-off position after turning over the reigns to an admin. This "attitudinizing admin mass bans members" shenanigans frequently happens when a newbie comes to power unchaperoned.
Regardless, I wrote "cu$tomer$" with dollar signs because that's what's been forgotten -- the customer is the source of the money, so follow the customer, not some arbitrary rules that apprently are there only to make the site owner happy, such as "don't talk with each other about solving site use problems if the discussion includes browser or ad blocker information".
Of course no owner HAS to say "thank you" to their "customers". Yet, owner's who forget that "customers satisfaction" is the only way to succeed are doomed to miserable failure. Hence this thread about another owner who ignored their customers, and then whines about their lack of success (well, an admin whines anyway).
Sadly, your advice was for monetizing their site, not for satisfying their customers. You and the site admin are still missing the point -- customer satisfaction is the primary goal, all other goals depend on and are subservient to customer satisfaction first.
And of course I was being sarcastic. But I got interrupted before I could respond to your insulting, emotional post. When I revisited your post, I had cooled off a bit and could laugh at your energies. Your emotions had swamped your intellect. This happens to me quite often in my first response to whatever bothers me, too. After a break, I could laugh at both of us, and dig deeper to the intellectual basis buried within your post.
In asking you questions back, it gave you a chance to dig deeper, too. I just think you were digging in the wrong place. I think customer satisfaction come before monetizing those customers.
Peter Blaise dot com
PS - You weren't whining about all of us whining, were you? ;-)
Oh my, you're so right. I hadn't thought about it like that. Thanks for sharing your alternative insights. You've really made me think. Thank you.
By the way, I think the site owner was complaining about their income model not working out very well. Got any ideas to help them change and grow and learn new things to make money?
And Google has like 50 words on their opening page, less if you don't even mode your mouse. How clean is that? Is anyone complaining about Google advertisements or begin banned from Google because they broke Google's own version of a non-negotiated TOS. Oh, wait a minute, Google doesn't have a TOS that includes the kind of self-serving silliness the web site in question tries to inflict on their otherwise free and open Internet visitors (read: cu$tomer$).
But otherwise, your thoughts are right on, whatever they were. Lemme summarize: "... don't like a site's policies, leave, don't complain ..."
But, I do think the owner said, "thanks for coming back" however ... oh, wait a minute, no, the owner did not say that at all, did they? Hmm ... so who's the one having problems getting their feelings of entitlement satisfied here after all?
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise dot com
Earlier: "... So you expect to get their service for free? ..."
Have you tried the Internet? Lots of free stuff there. Sort of like real life, like a library, or a mall or a bunch of stores where you can look at everything, read to your heart's content, even try stuff out, and only buy what you deem appropriate for you at a price you like. You can also ignore whatever you want to ignore.
Cool or what!?!